Lens-sense: on seeing a world as sensed by a camera Can a camera sense what a human eye cannot? This question was of great concern to early film theorists. It has since been rejuvenated by recent trends in contemporary cinema that present the photographic lens as transcending the limitations of human vision. In this article, I propose that camera-centric vision offers us particular ways of seeing the world. More particularly, I suggest that camera-centric images raise speculative ideas about what the world may look and feel like to technologies of (digital) reproduction and visualisation. In what follows, I will investigate how found footage horror and the films of American director, Tony Scott, enact a camera-centric vision, concentrating my analysis on scenes from V/H/S/2 (Simon Barrett, Jason Eisener, Gareth Evans, Gregg Hale, Eduardo Sánchez, Timo Tjahjanto and Adam Wingard, 2013) and Déjà Vu (Tony Scott, 2006). Stylistically and thematically, these films seem far apart. Found footage horror deals with how non-human terrors appear to the human as well as how their appearances are effectuated by audio-visual recording technologies. The themes explored by Tony Scott do not concern monsters or invisible terrors but a making visible of tensions and atmospheres that do not necessarily reside within or originate from any particular human character. His films make visible the tensions evoked in a given narrative situation, as well as the performative affective potentials of these atmospheres. What found footage horror and Scott’s films have in common is their creative use of cinema as a medium of speculation. Following on from this speculative potential, my emphasis is on the ‘what-if’ questions raised by these films. I pursue this emphasis by addressing how camera-centric vision makes sight visible according to certain parameters. The films that I examine experiment with camera-centric vision, challenging and re-negotiating these parameters. This raises the question of what it is that camera-centric vision makes visible and how this phenomenon is positioned in relation to other, more established, modes of cinematic vision. My focus is on how camera-centric vision performs and renders visible affective relations. Visualising relations of affect, camera-centric images make a-subjective intensities perceptible to the human observer. The visualisation of affect is a consistent theme in film history. What makes found footage horror and the films of Tony Scott especially innovative is that they visualise affect in more explicitly mediated and camera- specific forms. My analysis thus revokes revelationist trends in classic film theory while at the same time offering a complementary perspective on how digital images present medium-specific traces. [1] Recent 1 discussions about the ontological status of images often point to the prevalence of analogue traits in digital pictures. [2] Concurrently, such images are addressed as self-reflective. They are seen as both commenting upon their own mediated status and inviting a meta-perspective on a media-saturated contemporary culture. [3] These images are also analysed as a particular case of precarious or ‘noisy’ media [4]; as instances of post- continuity cinema [5]; or, more specifically, as an aspect of the post-perceptual qualities of post-cinematic media. [6] My focus on camera-centric vision complements these concerns, while also seeking to address the particular speculative and affective scenarios raised by the films that I discuss. Establishing a view through a lens Contemporary cinema and visual media often include traces of photographic production. This trend is most clearly seen in imagery that directly acknowledges the presence of a camera, such as in faux documentaries or the tradition of found footage fiction cinema. At a more implicit level, the inclusion of medium-specific formal characteristics such as lens flares, out-of-focus shots, shaky camerawork, lens cracks or splatter, fast motion, slow shutter speeds and grainy surveillance footage acknowledge the images’ mediated status and gesture towards the presence of a physical camera. This tendency is what I label as ‘camera-centric vision’ in contemporary cinema. It occurs when images explicitly present themselves from the vantage point of a photographic lens. Camera-centric vision is not determined by its mode of production. Oftentimes, the traces of a camera- centric view are inscribed as a visual effect, even in cases where the image is entirely generated through digital computer graphics without any photographic source materials. This is for instance seen in the prevalent introduction of lens flares in digital animation and computer games. Special effects are integral to digital image production. [7] Indeed, visual effects are no longer special but are closely ingrained within contemporary filmmaking. They permeate not only post-production but also the preparation and execution of photographic stages of image production. [8] Even though cinema has arguably never been an exclusively photographic medium and visual effects have always been integral to cinematic production, digital tools have diminished the role of photography in the making of cinematic imagery. [9]. This is not to say that the camera itself is becoming obsolete. In everyday life, cameras are ubiquitous and ingrained with numerous other technologies such as cell phones, tablets or webcams. With the rise of contemporary digital media, camera-generated images are more prolific than ever before. At the same time as the production-based role of photographic imagery in cinema is receding, we are witnessing an overflow 2 of user-generated photographic content. This is the context within which the current prevalence of camera- centric vision can be situated, pointing towards the omnipresence of cameras in contemporary culture and the waning of photography-based image production. Even as camera-centric vision is becoming a more active and visible presence in the cinema, the technology of the camera is becoming less central as a determining factor in its production. Historically speaking, cinema has always presented its audiences with images of the world as seen through a lens. Cinematic images typically originate from a camera and audiences are in most cases well aware of this fact. In influential cinematic traditions such as classical Hollywood cinema, the mediation of the image has largely remained implicit and masked by standards such as continuity editing [10]. Images are here oriented towards transparency (a clear and unobstructed view of the world). The classical model of transparency is not a given neutral standard, however. Transparency is itself always particular, operating according to certain parameters that define how views are presented to audiences. Film sees The transparent image is modelled on human vision, whereby cinematic conventions are broadly directed towards creating a semblance of human perception. [11] I do not hereby claim that all cinematic images present the world as seen through the eyes of a human individual (as if cinema consisted of nothing but point of view shots). Rather, cinematic transparency is modelled on translating how a scene would appear to a(n) implicit or imaginary human observer (no matter the likelihood or realism of the shot actually originating from a human spectator). Human-centric cinematic vision has been paradigmatic across film history and is still a predominant mode. My distinction between camera-centric and human-centric cinematic vision should not be seen as a binary opposition. All cinematic images reveal both mediation and an anthropocentric bias. [12] On the one hand, an image reflects its technological mediation and on the other hand it renders sights discernible for the perspective of a human observer. Both always-already present, these two characteristics can be more or less explicit. The mediated status of an image can veer towards the invisible (as in a model of transparency) or it can be made explicit (as in camera-centric vision). Likewise, the views presented can be more or less anchored in human vision. It would indeed be hard to even imagine what a non-human-centred image would look like, especially since all available imaging technologies are assembled according to anthropocentric parameters and aimed towards rendering sights visible to the human observer. A camera-centric image is thus not presenting an a-human view on the world. Rather, it presents a view that is explicitly anchored in a 3 technological apparatus that is itself tailored towards human vision. The question, then, is whether or not camera-centric vision enables new sights for human observers. Film offers a mode of seeing and a mode of thinking. [13] This is true for all films, although different films will offer different modes of seeing and thinking. Although some films make their particular mode of seeing and/or thinking explicit for the viewer, we tend to approach film as the representation of a (diegetic) world, in a more or less accurate manner. However, once we start from the premise that film sees and thinks, new sets of questions emerge. How does a film see, what does it see, and from which perspective? How does it think, what does it think, and how are these thoughts presented? This forces us to question what it means to see and what it means to think. Can a mode of technological mediation see and think? Can a mode of technological mediation be a subject? To address these questions, it is imperative to approach film in non- anthropocentric terms. Film can be a seeing and thinking entity, but not necessarily according to human- based models. Film can see and think differently than human beings. Film thinks To understand film as a particular mode of thinking, Daniel Frampton proposes the concepts of the filmind and film-thinking. [14] Whereas the filmind designates a “concept of film-being” as “the theoretical originator of the images and sounds we experience”, film-thinking “is seen as the dramatic thinking of the filmind”.